A.C. No. 8395 - Basagan vs. Espina

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8395)

Factual Background

Basagan narrated that the Land Bank of the Philippines was granted a loan through the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF Loan), now the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), for the Local Government Units Support Credit Program, intended for onlending to qualified local government units for projects including housing and health, water supply, flood control and sanitation, forestry, sewage and solid waste treatment, and sub-project preparation. She alleged that on October 10, 2005, then Mayor Espina entered into a subsidiary loan agreement with Landbank Sogod, Southern Leyte Branch in the amount of P19,045,600.00 under the OECF Loan for the development of the Libagon Water System Level III Project.

Basagan further alleged that, in furtherance of the Project, the municipal government entered into (1) a Contract for Consultancy Services with POIEL Engineering and Management Services for detailed engineering design and construction supervision, with a lump sum consultancy fee of P1,042,099.30, and (2) an agreement with Legacy Construction requiring the contractor to furnish the necessary equipment, materials, labor, tools, transportation including fuel, and other means to complete the works for P18,598,000.00. She claimed that the Project was “reportedly anomalous,” and she pointed to a fact that members of an association sought fact-finding investigation through the Ombudsman Visayas.

Basagan’s principal theory was that the alleged anomalous transactions were notarized by Atty. Espina because the three contracts were notarized by respondent, purportedly making him disqualified under the notarial rule due to his relationship with the mayor-principal who signed the documents.

Procedural History in the Supreme Court

After Basagan filed the complaint, the Court issued an October 7, 2009 Resolution requiring Atty. Espina to comment within ten days. His failure to file a comment resulted in a later July 11, 2011 Resolution directing him to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt of court and to comply with the earlier resolution.

In his October 10, 2011 Manifestation and Compliance, Atty. Espina claimed that he had been physically and actually residing in Cebu City for many years while maintaining Libagon as his domicile. He asserted that he learned of the action only on October 7, 2011, when he received the July 11, 2011 Resolution, and he prayed that he be furnished with a copy of the complaint. The Court noted his compliance on December 7, 2011 and later received further statements from Atty. Espina.

In his supplemental submissions, Atty. Espina emphasized that he never received a copy of the complaint and, through his investigation at the Philpost office in Libagon, claimed there was no record of communication from the Court to him. He explained that a later Philpost entry indicated receipt of a letter for him by another person whose name was not written legibly, thereby allegedly preventing him from obtaining the complaint to prepare an intelligent comment. The Court then directed Basagan to furnish respondent with a copy of the complaint and its annexes and required him to comment within a specified period after receipt of the copies. The case later remained pending for an extended period.

On April 3, 2012, Atty. Espina again manifested that he still had not received a copy of the complaint. On August 1, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution noting the manifestations, directing Basagan to furnish copies and directing respondent to comment after receipt. On April 20, 2015, the Court required Basagan to show cause why she failed to submit proof of service on respondent of the complaint and to comply with the August 1, 2012 Resolution. On September 21, 2015, Basagan informed the Court that she could no longer furnish proof of service because the case records had been soaked during typhoon Yolanda, while also stating that she and respondent had patched up their differences and leaving the matter to the Court.

As the case had been pending for more than seven years, the Court, in an August 24, 2016 Resolution, referred the complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant. Upon the Bar Confidant’s recommendation and in view of the case’s length, the Court dispensed with the filing of a comment by respondent and referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for thorough investigation, report, and recommendation.

IBP Investigation and Recommendations

The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Gina H. Mirano-Jesena, issued her Report and Recommendation on December 10, 2018. She found that Atty. Espina committed a serious error by notarizing the subsidiary loan agreement, the contract for consultancy services, and the project agreement signed by his wife as mayor, in violation of Rule IV, Section 3(c) of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, which disqualifies the notary public if the notary is the spouse or a relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended a penalty of one (1) year suspension from the practice of law and two (2) years suspension from being commissioned as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings with modification on February 15, 2019, and resolved to impose six (6) months suspension from the practice of law and two (2) years disqualification to hold a commission as notary public, with a directive that if respondent was then serving as a notary public, he should be immediately decommissioned.

The Parties' Positions Before the Court

The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved for those who maintain the highest morality and faithfully comply with the rules of the legal profession. The Court also underscored that administrative proceedings against lawyers require substantial evidence and that a respondent enjoys the presumption of innocence.

Although Basagan had anchored the complaint on documents and affidavits to establish that Atty. Espina notarized the municipal contracts, the Supreme Court ultimately found that Basagan failed to discharge her burden of proof. The core of the Court’s assessment was evidentiary: it held that Basagan’s proof did not comply with the Best Evidence Rule because she presented photocopies rather than the original documents, and she did not establish a basis for admitting secondary evidence.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that while disbarment and suspension protect the courts and the public from unfit lawyers, the complainant must still prove the allegations by substantial evidence. It held that the Court is not bound by the IBP’s findings and recommendations and can make its own findings based on the evidence on record.

In the Court’s view, Basagan failed to present substantial and admissible evidence necessary to establish the alleged violation. Specifically, Basagan sought to prove that Atty. Espina violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by attaching to her complaint photocopies of the relevant documents, namely: the subsidiary loan agreement, the contract for consultancy services, the project agreement, and letters between Tito E. Calooy, Jr. and Romulo Endico. The Court also examined Basagan’s submitted affidavit of Calooy and found that the second page of the affidavit was itself a photocopy and that the affiant’s signature was not original. The Court described the erasures on the details of the proof of identity as exceptionally remarkable.

Because the main charge in a disbarment proceeding turns on the accuracy, completeness, and authenticity of the documents, the Court held that the documentary evidence itself must comply with the Best Evidence Rule under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, absent a recognized exception. It cited Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4, which require the original document when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, and which define what constitutes the original and when copies may be regarded as originals. It held that the photocopies were neither certified true copies nor testified to by a witness competent to establish their authenticity. It also noted that the source of the documents for Basagan’s participation in their execution was not shown, prompting the Court’s concern as to where the documents came from.

The Court further rejected Basagan’s reliance on an affidavit of Dolores Cahucom, which the Court characterized as containing only a general statement that she had “direct knowledge” that Atty. Espina notarized the documents. The Court held that the affidavit failed to give specific details showing how Cahucom acquired such direct knowledge, whic

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8395)

The complainant, Lorna C. Basagan, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Domingo P. Espina for alleged violation of Rule IV, Section 3(c) of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
The complaint sought immediate preventive suspension and the imposition of the appropriate disciplinary penalty if the respondent were found guilty.
The case proceeded through multiple resolutions, including directives to file comment and to address alleged issues on service of court issuances.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Lorna C. Basagan appeared as the complainant and taxpayer-resident of Barangay Tigbao, Libagon, Southern Leyte.
Atty. Domingo P. Espina appeared as the respondent, a resident of Barangay Jubas, Libagon, Southern Leyte, a former mayor of the municipality of Libagon, husband of then-incumbent Mayor Rizalina B. Espina, and a notary public.
The Supreme Court issued an initial resolution requiring the respondent to comment on the complaint within ten days, and the respondent failed to file a comment within the period.
A subsequent resolution required the respondent to show cause why he should not be held disciplinarily dealt with or for contempt for failure to comply with the directive to comment.
The respondent later filed a Manifestation and Compliance explaining his claimed non-receipt and requesting that he be furnished a copy of the complaint.
The Court treated the respondent’s compliance as satisfactory and later addressed continued allegations that he had not received a copy of the complaint.
The Supreme Court directed Basagan to furnish the respondent with a copy of the complaint and annexes and then required the respondent to comment after receipt.
Basagan later reported that she could no longer furnish proof of service due to records allegedly soaked during Typhoon Yolanda.
Because the case had been pending for more than seven years, the Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant, and thereafter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline issued a Report and Recommendation, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted it with a modification on penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

Basagan alleged that she is a taxpayer and resident of Barangay Tigbao, Libagon, Southern Leyte, and she challenged notarial acts connected to local government projects.
Basagan narrated that the Land Bank of the Philippines (Landbank) obtained an OECF Loan (later JBIC) in the amount of 6,072,000.00 for the Local Government Units Support Credit Program.
Basagan asserted that the loan was for onlending to qualified local government units to finance various development projects, including housing and health, water supply, flood control and sanitation, forestry, sewage and solid waste treatment, and sub-project preparation.
Basagan claimed that on October 10, 2005, then Mayor Espina entered into a subsidiary loan agreement with Landbank Sogod Southern Leyte Branch for P19,045,600.00 for the development of Libagon Water System Level III.
Basagan alleged that the Mayor also executed a Contract for Consultancy Services with the POIEL Engineering and Management Services for detailed engineering design and construction supervision of the project, with a lump sum fee of P1,042,099.30.
Basagan further alleged an Agreement with Legacy Construction obligating the contractor to furnish equipment, materials, labor, tools, transportation including fuel, power, air, water, and other necessary means to complete the works for P18,598,000.00.
Basagan contended that the project was anomalous and referenced a complaint filed with the Ombudsman Visayas by members of the Association of Barangay Councils of Libagon, Southern Leyte.
Basagan alleged that the “more anomalous” character of the project stemmed from the fact that the three contracts signed by Mayor Espina were allegedly notarized by the respondent.
The administrative charge focused on the respondent’s alleged notarial participation in documents signed by a spouse within the prohibited relationship under Rule IV, Section 3(c).

Court Proceedings on Service and Comment

The respondent claimed that he learned of the action only on October 7, 2011, after receiving a later resolution dated July 11, 2011, and he asserted he had an ongoing domicile issue between Cebu City and Libagon.
The respondent requested that he be furnished a copy of the complaint to enable him to prepare an answer.
The Supreme Court noted the respondent’s initial manifestation and compliance and treated it as satisfactory compliance with the resolution directing him to show compliance.
In a supplemental manifestation, the respondent claimed he never received a copy of the complaint and that postal records did not show delivery from the Court to him.
The respondent